Page 31 of 33 FirstFirst ... 222324252627282930313233 LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 493

Thread: What if: Western Allies vs Russia- 1945

  1. #451
    New Member thejester's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 07
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Perhaps you've forgotten about the entire Pacific forces?
    Yeah, the Pacific Fleet is going to be playing a decisive role on the North German Plain.

    All those American and Empire troops and equipment and aircraft etc fresh from stomping the Japanese?
    'Fresh'? How about all those guys fresh from the meatgrinder at Okinawa, or the continuous campaigning in Burma followed by Operation ZIPPER? And who do you leave behind to occupy and hold Japan? As I said in my first post, IMO the war will end with a negotiated peace after the Allies drop the first nuke, so the men in the Pacific are going to be irrelevant.

    The USSR had a peak strength of 12.5 million men at arms and by wars end had lost 7.5 million. America had a peak strength of 12.3 million and lost 290,000
    The Empire had a peak strength of 9 million and lost 345,000
    They also had vast navies, worldwide committments and massive logistical infrastructure. The fact that the Empire only lost 345,000 out of 9 million doesn't change the fact that the British Army was amalgamating battalions throughout 1945 because it had run out of men. The Allies had a manpower crisis, as did the Soviets; by the time the Allies can solve this manpower crisis, if they can, the war will be over.

    What troubles were those?
    I haven't got the necessary books at Uni with me, but IIRC there was something of a 'plague' of trenchfoot and a scarcity of winter uniforms (in part created by the putting of other items ahead of them in the logistical chain). The US Army suffered in the cold of Western Europe, despite the advantages listed above; I fail to see why they would do much better in the much harsher Russian winter.

  2. #452
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by thejester View Post
    Yeah, the Pacific Fleet is going to be playing a decisive role on the North German Plain.
    Oh Dear.
    Lets see, completely ignoring the Australian, Indian and NZ divisions and sticking purely with the Americans

    6th Infantry division
    7th Infantry division
    Americal Infantry division
    24th Infantry division
    25th Infantry division
    27th Infantry division
    31st Infantry division
    32nd Infantry division
    33rd Infantry division
    37th Infantry division
    38th Infantry division
    40th Infantry division
    41st Infantry division
    43rd Infantry division
    77th Infantry division
    81st Infantry division
    93rd Infantry division
    96th Infantry division
    98th Infantry division
    Philippines Infantry division
    11th Airborne division
    1st Cavalry division

    Marines
    two corps with six divisions, and five air wings with 132 squadrons. In addition, 20 defense battalions and a parachute battalion

    Add to that
    Type............... 8/14/45*
    Battleships.............23
    Carriers, Fleet.........28
    Carriers, Escort.......71
    Cruisers.................72
    Destroyers.............377
    Frigates................361
    Submarines............232
    SSBNs - - - - - -
    Command Ships - - - - - -
    Mine Warfare.........586
    Patrol...................1204
    Amphibious............2547
    Auxiliary................1267
    Surface Warships....833
    Total Active...........6768
    Which provides rather nice mobility I'm sure you'll agree, and enables D-Day type landings anywhere from Siberia to the Crimea or the Baltic, and not a damn thing the Soviets could do about it.

    We'll discount the bombers and fighters from the pacific, and just Stick with RAF, VIII and XV bomber commands. The only thing the Soviets had that could in any way counter the Allies heavy bombers was the Yak15, not (and I'm sure you'll leap to correct me if I'm wrong) introduced until 46.
    There were of course Shooting Star squadrons in 45, and I believe the Meteor was rolling out in late 44? As well as the Bearcat and Tempest. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.
    Couple that with American industrial production not having even having hit full speed, infact being scaled down because they were over-producing?

    And you're going to put what up against this in any numbers, the Yak9? Or the Shturmovik? All this of course without them having any essential re-supply via lend-lease.



    Yeah right.

  3. #453
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    You and I both know that the Ho Chi Minh trail was far more sophisticated than infilitarting infantry and coolies and than large numbers of tanks, men and guns - that in itself ignoring that there's a 25 year technology gap between what the Americans were using to interdict in Vietnam and what they'll use in this scenario.
    It is still primarily an infantry trail, not an autobahn. And the technology differane is really not all that great. The Russians will provide a target rich enviroment without cover.

    Even if we assume that the Red Army is just going to copy the plans it would come up with 20 years later for a war against NATO...so what if they're an inviting target? There's a huge difference between being inviting and being invited, if you catch my meaning - and that also assumes, as you later, that the Soviet attack is not the commencement of hostilities.
    It is the only real option, an attack acros the center or out of the Balkans pits them agaisnt the biggest amount of defenders (US Army) in the most defensable posistions. The North Germna plains offer the prospect of rapid movement and ideally they can reach and cross the Rhine and build up a strong enough shoulder before the US Army can react and shift to support the BAOC.

    Yes, failure. The Allied air forces set to completely isolate a light infantry force in static positions, and they failed. As I said, it goes beyond the Chinese not being able to bring up heavy weapons - Allied pilot wer knocking down spans and then seeign them be rebuilt in days. That is the failure of interdiction.
    you can support a light infantry force on 100lbs per combat soldier per day, a mechanized force needs closer to a ton per combat troops per day thats a world of differance when it comes to interdiction. Even with those reduced requirments Chinese troops were often starving and weaponless.

    Superchargers are irrelevant because of the altitude that the combat will be fought at, and I very much doubt that high octane fuel will provide any real advantage compared to the likes of teamwork. I'm not denying that the Allies will have the edge in the air, I just don't think it will be a walk over.
    I think it willb e, the VVS has not had to contend with an airforce the size of the Western allies machine per machine, man per man, and doctrine for doctrine the allies are superior and more numerous.

    Bombers are also much tougher. As F-86 pilots learned in Korea, volume of fire doesn't mean much when you're bullets aren't doing enough damage to the enemy.
    Russian propjobs also lacked the armor of the Mig 15, They would have been shredded. The IL-2 and IL-10 had armor but still had inline engines not radials and even then thier armor was geared towards ground fire and light machine guns not the heavy armor peircing bullets of the 50 cal.

    This isn't going to a long, attritional contest; nuclear weapons ensure that.
    Aug 45 nukes are just coming on line so I am leaving them out of it. War vs the USSR will side line the pacific theater and the nukes and B-29's will probably be used to brow beat Japan into submisison. I am assuming an attritional war where the US and UK are seeking to liberate Poland and Eastern Europe.

    [/quote]The USSR is out of trained men but still has huge numbers in the field. The UK is out of trained men but barely has any left in the field. The US is gradually increasing it's number of trained men but they are often 2nd/3rd rate recruits.[/quote]

    I would point out the huge numbers avaiable of trained men in the African-American battalions. While racial view sof the time considered them inferior the truth is they are as good and as motivated as any white man.

    Much of it from Europe...and I'm sure the Soviets would tremble in their boots at the thought of 5th Fleet arriving off the Kola. Not.
    More like off the Batlic coast landing troops aimed at freeing the baltic states (who were pre-war US Allies) and threatening Lenningrad

    Yeah, they would execute an extremely complex deception plan beforehand, conceal their preparation from the enemy, and then use the RIF to 'hug' the enemy. On top of this, you're assuming hostilities have broken out before the Soviets attack.
    Of course I am, the thread idea was Patton gets his war. In this case botrh sodes will be aware of the others preperations and the allies are actively goading the Russians into action as justification (overfligths, rhetohric, arming dissidants, using "good" nazi's openly to recruit others form the Soviet zone etc)

    Which will be utterly worthless. You've got an extreme faith in the PFF if you think they can pin point a lonely part of german countryside, mark it accurately, and then expect the Main Force to bomb it accurately enough to prevent widespread friendly casualties. On top of that, even the full force of Bomber Command would be able to at best hit one army sized formation. That still leaves about ten others to execute the initial attacks.
    I have faith that recon will identify the most likely sites and then when the balloon goe sup radio direction will enable thew pathfinders to hit a city sized area that is serving as the Fronts artillery park and logistics base. and 1 more of 10 more a single successful raid makes such concentration suicidal and forces the Russians to adapt, something they did not readily do on the fly.

    32 v 400-600? It shows the extreme disaprity between an air force that didn't know what it was doing and one with the killer instinct.
    I think the same type of thing will occur if it is the RAF/USAAF vs the VVS in 1945.

    I woudl agree to an extent, except I don't think the Allied air forces will be able to put the logistical cramp on before the damage is done.
    Remember my goal (as Patton per the thread title) is not the mother of all battles, but Warsaw and Budapest

  4. #454
    New Member thejester's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 07
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Oh Dear.
    'Oh dear' indeed. Let's see how 'fresh' these units are:

    6th Infantry division - 'fresh' from the Phillipines, where it landed in January '45 and remained until VJ Day before being carted off to occupy Korea;
    7th Infantry division - 'fresh' from the Okinawa battle
    Americal Infantry division - in occupation of Japan from 10 September onwards;
    24th Infantry division - still mopping up Japanese resistance in the Phillipines as of August '45;
    25th Infantry division - 'fresh' from its operations in the Phillipines (January 11 - June 30th)
    27th Infantry division - 'fresh' from Okinawa
    31st Infantry division - 'fresh' from its stint on Mindanao (22 April - VJ Day)
    32nd Infantry division - 'fresh' from the Phillipines, it saw 100 days of continious combat before some units were pulled out, though mopping up operations continued until VJ Day
    33rd Infantry division - 'fresh' from Luzon (10 Feb - 12 May) before wading ashore at Honshu as part of the occupation forces in mid-September
    37th Infantry division - another one of those divisions 'fresh' from the Phillipines, it was mopping up resistance right up until VJ Day.
    38th Infantry division - yet another division 'fresh' from operations in the Phillipines, it too was mopping up until VJ Day
    40th Infantry division - OMFG a division that could actually be called fresh - it got pulled out of combat in April. Then it went to Korea, as part of the occupation forces.
    41st Infantry division - chalk up another division 'fresh' from the Phillipines
    43rd Infantry division - another division 'fresh' from the Phillipines, it went to Japan in September as part of the occupation forces.
    77th Infantry division - 'fresh' from Okinawa, it went into occupation in October
    81st Infantry division - this division could actually be legitimatelly called 'fresh': only saw minor mopping up duties in the Phillipines before occupying Japan.
    93rd Infantry division - spent most of its short life in rear-area duties. 'Fresh', though.
    96th Infantry division - 'fresh' from Okinawa
    98th Infantry division - so 'fresh' it never even saw combat!
    Philippines Infantry division - ....as far as I'm aware the Phillipines Division cease to exist as of the surrendur of US forces in the Phillipines. If you mean the various groups of Fllipino guerillas under US control, I doubt they'd be of much value in a 'stand-up' fight.
    11th Airborne division - relatively fresh: main division cease operations in May, save for one TF which jumped in late June.
    1st Cavalry division - fighting in Luzon until 1 July, then going to Japan for occupation duty.

    Marines
    two corps with six divisions, and five air wings with 132 squadrons. In addition, 20 defense battalions and a parachute battalion
    Of those six divisions, three were badly beaten up at Iwo Jima and two others were at Okinawa. All but three of the defence battalions had been converted into AA units by the end of the war; AFAIK all USMC parachute and raider units had been disbanded in 1944 to form the cores of the 5th and 6th divisions.

    Which provides rather nice mobility I'm sure you'll agree, and enables D-Day type landings anywhere from Siberia to the Crimea or the Baltic, and not a damn thing the Soviets could do about it.
    Quite apart from the fact that the US Pacific Fleet isn't just going to appear in Europe overnight, and that in the confined waters of the Baltic and the Black Sea Soviet coastal forces could pose a threat, and that by the time a vast logistical undertaking like an amphibious operation could be executed the war will be over...who cares? Land 6 divisions in Sibera. What are they threatning? The inuit?

    We'll discount the bombers and fighters from the pacific, and just Stick with RAF, VIII and XV bomber commands. The only thing the Soviets had that could in any way counter the Allies heavy bombers was the Yak15, not (and I'm sure you'll leap to correct me if I'm wrong) introduced until 46.
    I would have thought Soviet deficiencies in radar and communications would have been more of a factor than technical limitations (the service ceiling of a B-17 was 35,600ft; the Yak-3s was 35,000, the La-5 36,000 and the MiG-3 37,700ft). Of course, why everyone is like 'OMG t3h heavy bombers' eludes me. The CBO was a powerful weapon, but it took time to work - and as I keep saying, I think that the presence of nuclear weapons means this war won't last very long.

    There were of course Shooting Star squadrons in 45, and I believe the Meteor was rolling out in late 44? As well as the Bearcat and Tempest. Please do correct me if I'm wrong.
    The Tempest was certainly into squadron service by then, as was the Meteor. Again, why everyoen thinks this equals instant Allied air superiorty eludes me.

    Couple that with American industrial production not having even having hit full speed, infact being scaled down because they were over-producing?
    Which would matter if this was going to be a long, drawn out war...but it's not, as I keep saying.

    And you're going to put what up against this in any numbers, the Yak9? Or the Shturmovik? All this of course without them having any essential re-supply via lend-lease.
    'Essential'? Please tell me what exactly was 'essential' in Lend-Lease by 1945, or how it will affect a conflict that will last a couple of months at most.

  5. #455
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Ah ok.
    So as long as we ignore all other resources that the western alliance has elsewhere, discount the allies ability to carpet-bomb the Soviet forces and production, attribute combat weariness to the western forces but ignore the far greater weariness of the Soviets, ignore the wests vastly superior production capabilities and their ability to project force on at least three separate fronts simultaneously: ignore all evidence of the wests fighter superiority in training, aircraft and production, and carefully limit the time frame to Tuesday afternoon in the third week of May 1945, your argument works perfectly.

  6. #456
    New Member thejester's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Feb 07
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Parihaka View Post
    Ah ok.
    So as long as we ignore all other resources that the western alliance has elsewhere, discount the allies ability to carpet-bomb the Soviet forces and production, attribute combat weariness to the western forces but ignore the far greater weariness of the Soviets, ignore the wests vastly superior production capabilities and their ability to project force on at least three separate fronts simultaneously: ignore all evidence of the wests fighter superiority in training, aircraft and production, and carefully limit the time frame to Tuesday afternoon in the third week of May 1945, your argument works perfectly.


    I'm perfectly willing to admit that in a long-drawn out war of attrition the West would win; but it won't be a long, drawn out war of attrition because as soon as the Western Allies drop the first nuclear weapon the USSR has to sue for peace, and I think the losses inflicted in Germany will make the West only to happy to agree to that peace. What I'm not going to do is capitulate to your strawmen and your own ignorance. You are the one who stated the forces of the Pacifc would be 'fresh' and available to fight, despite the fact that most were fighting right up until VJ Day and indeed afterwards, not to mention the needs of garrisoning Japan and her ex-colonies. You are the one who ignores the limitations of the Combined Bomber Offensive; you are the one who acts as af a pinprick on the extremeties of the Union is going to pose a serious threat. You state that I've ignored the West's superiority in 'training, aircraft and production' when in reality I had already acknowledged them:

    The Allies certainly had a huge advantage in terms of pilot quality,
    Allied prop-engined fighters were consistently able to beat German jets despite their 'inferiority'.
    I wouldn't particullarly deny that [Russian pilots stunk], but it's also irrelevant
    My argument is not that the VVS can beat the Allied air forces in the air but rather that it will hinder them in their tasks. Air superiority is not won overnight; as long as the VVS exists, it hinders the Allied air forces in their interdiction mission and buys the Red Army the time to destroy their Allied counterparts.

  7. #457
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    Quote Originally Posted by thejester View Post
    I'm perfectly willing to admit that in a long-drawn out war of attrition the West would win; but it won't be a long, drawn out war of attrition because as soon as the Western Allies drop the first nuclear weapon the USSR has to sue for peace, and I think the losses inflicted in Germany will make the West only to happy to agree to that peace. What I'm not going to do is capitulate to your strawmen and your own ignorance.
    LOL, good for you. Welcome to the board, we like people to pop into the introductions thread and well, introduce themselves.

    Edit: By the way, you might enjoy this read as well.
    http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/lan...es-1945-a.html
    Last edited by Parihaka; 25 Feb 07, at 07:13.

  8. #458
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Feb 07
    Posts
    33

    Western Allies vs Soviet Union in 1945

    I think some posters on this board underestimate the Soviet Union Red Army in 1945. Yes, the U.S. had a superior air force in 1945 but the U.S. had total air superiority against the Chinese in the Korean War and that war ended in a stalemate. Granted the U.S. did not mobilize totally for the Korean War like WWII but what the Korean War showed was that air superiority alone would not win conventional wars. When another country's leadership is totally ruthless and does not care about casualties, technology does not always prevail.

    A previous poster excellently pointed out the Russians were adept at nightime fighting, something the U.S. avoided both in WWII and Korea. German memoirs continually point out that the Russians always attacked in the night, during the worst weather possible to avoid detection. WWII air force is not going to be able to knock out T-34's, Kaythusha's etc at night.

    I think in 1945, the U.S. would ultimately hold its own against the Red Army but would most likely only advance as far as Central Europe (Eastern Germany / Poland) with a negotiated cease fire. There is no way the U.S. could have taken Moscow unless the Russian people supported the U.S. as liberators.

    Parihaka brings up a good point that an amphibious assualt at the Crimea or Siberia etc would divert troops, however, I don't see a real successful operation at either locations.
    Last edited by Irishman7; 27 Feb 07, at 19:30. Reason: Added narrative

  9. #459
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman7 View Post
    I think some posters on this board underestimate the Soviet Union Red Army in 1945. Yes, the U.S. had a superior air force in 1945 but the U.S. had total air superiority against the Chinese in the Korean War and that war ended in a stalemate. Granted the U.S. did not mobilize totally for the Korean War like WWII but what the Korean War showed was that air superiority alone would not win conventional wars. When another country's leadership is totally ruthless and does not care about casualties, technology does not always prevail.

    A previous poster excellently pointed out the Russians were adept at nightime fighting, something the U.S. avoided both in WWII and Korea. German memoirs continually point out that the Russians always attacked in the night, during the worst weather possible to avoid detection. WWII air force is not going to be able to knock out T-34's, Kaythusha's etc at night.

    I think in 1945, the U.S. would ultimately hold its own against the Red Army but would most likely only advance as far as Central Europe (Eastern Germany / Poland) with a negotiated cease fire. There is no way the U.S. could have taken Moscow unless the Russian people supported the U.S. as liberators.
    Russia at this point in time did not have a Navy capable of standing up to the U.S. fleets that were close by and at that time bearing full numbers of all surface combatants and subs. You may not win by air superiority alone but when you combine that with sea superiority for those caught in between them the future looks pretty bleek if you ask me. It would not take them long to gain big ground rapidly given the support chain they already had in place between the Allied countries for both ground and sea forces. Meanwhile Russia was already in shambles from Germany's continious assult.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 27 Feb 07, at 19:35.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  10. #460
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Feb 07
    Posts
    33
    With a U.S. blockade, Russia would have simply plundered the countries (Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania) etc for food and fuel. Soviet production was east of the Urals in the heart of the Soviet Union. Pretty hard for a B-17 or a B-29 to have fighter escort from Franfurt to the Urals.

    The Soviet Union is so massive it would be near impossible to fully blockade. Plus they had subs which they used against the Germans in the Baltic Sea as the Germans tried to evacuate the Northern Front troops at Memel and Danzig. U.S. would have unleashed the atomic bomb and a ceasefire would have been drawn up with the Soviet Union returning to its pre-WWII borders.

  11. #461
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman7 View Post
    With a U.S. blockade, Russia would have simply plundered the countries (Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania) etc for food and fuel. Soviet production was east of the Urals in the heart of the Soviet Union. Pretty hard for a B-17 or a B-29 to have fighter escort from Franfurt to the Urals.

    The Soviet Union is so massive it would be near impossible to fully blockade. Plus they had subs which they used against the Germans in the Baltic Sea as the Germans tried to evacuate the Northern Front troops at Memel and Danzig. U.S. would have unleashed the atomic bomb and a ceasefire would have been drawn up with the Soviet Union returning to its pre-WWII borders.
    Just in asking, What could the Russians possibly plunder that Germany hadnt trampled,burned,raped,killed or destroyed? The Russians in that sense would have been "years lates and millions short" these countries were already ran over by the German war machine and literally wastelands with exception to forrests. Who needs Frankfurt or any other city when you have numerous carriers and absolute control of the sea and we all know Russia has waters around her more then deep enough for carrier ops. IMO it would have been prime time to hit Russia even without the bomb. You already have a near perfect supply chain and plenty of troops and cover. And as far as the Urals Bombers can take off from carriers or do what they did in the island campaigns built quick "runways to go" fast,effieicent, low cost and not worried if destroyed so long as it served its purpose.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

  12. #462
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Feb 07
    Posts
    33

    Western Allies vs Soviet Union 1945

    I don't see where a carrier group is going to make much of a difference in 1945 off the Pacific Coast of Russia. Yes, you can bomb Vladivostok but what else are you going to bomb in Siberia. Gulags and elk?

    Back in 1945, from a fuel perspective, the fighter planes couldn't fly from the Pacific to Moscow or the Urals to provide fighter cover for the bombers. I doubt if the bombers would be able to either. You would either have to have a carrier group in the Barents or Arabian sea and I don't know still if figter plans would have enough fuel to reach the manufacturing areas of Moscow / Ural Mountains.

    In 1950, U.S. had problems with fighter cover (fuel capacity) flying simply from Japan to Korea during the Korean Ward. Get out an atlas and you will see the distances involved.

    Romania would have provided the Soviets all the oil they would need in addition to their own in the Caucuses. I will grant you that food may have been an issue as Germans were reduced to eating grass and roots after WWII, but the Soviets would have fed their troops and let the civilians starve.

  13. #463
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Te Whanganui a-Tara, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,870
    You can use the pacific forces planned for the Japanese homeland invasion to establish a beachhead at Vladivostok. This gives you mainland air bases to bomb the east of Urals industrial centres. It gives you a rail link through Siberia to fight along should you choose. It at least ties down the Siberian divisions (remember they were there for a reason) and means the Soviets have two fronts to supply.
    You can use the Italian/Nth African forces including the XV bomber command to attack up through Iran and threaten their oil fields. That's three fronts.
    As for the Atom bomb, how many do you have and what do you target? Stalin had no problem sacrificing millions of civilians, would the A-bomb make him capitulate?

  14. #464
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,003
    Quote Originally Posted by Irishman7 View Post
    With a U.S. blockade, Russia would have simply plundered the countries (Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania) etc for food and fuel. Soviet production was east of the Urals in the heart of the Soviet Union. Pretty hard for a B-17 or a B-29 to have fighter escort from Franfurt to the Urals.

    The Soviet Union is so massive it would be near impossible to fully blockade. Plus they had subs which they used against the Germans in the Baltic Sea as the Germans tried to evacuate the Northern Front troops at Memel and Danzig. U.S. would have unleashed the atomic bomb and a ceasefire would have been drawn up with the Soviet Union returning to its pre-WWII borders.
    The funny thing is the US doesn't need the navy to blocade the USSR, simply stopping lend lease shipments of high grade fuels and food and it starves with in 3 months. The USSR was finally out of men, now for it to have men for the front and feilds it would be one or the other.

    The issue won't be decided in Russia but in Germany and Poland. The Red Army has one chance to race to the channel beofre it starves. If it fails its next stop is a POW camp.

  15. #465
    Regular
    Join Date
    20 Feb 07
    Posts
    33
    Zraver,

    If all that you say is true then why did Eisenhower do everything possible to appease Stalin and the Red Army when Churchill, Patton and Montgomery were urging Eishenhower to take Berlin, Prague, and Vienna?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Israel works on Iran N-strike
    By Ray in forum The Iranian Question
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 27 Sep 08,, 12:20
  2. Afghanistan and the Future of Warfare
    By troung in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23 Feb 08,, 01:59
  3. Do G4 have a case.
    By crooks in forum International Politics
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 31 Dec 06,, 11:58
  4. America's Pathetic Putin-Envy
    By VovaLee in forum International Politics
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 19 Dec 06,, 22:34
  5. Rivalry Brews in Russia's Backyard
    By Gio in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05 Dec 04,, 04:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •